Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 9804
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Mrs. Pratima K. Gupta, J, Mr. Sanjeeva Kumar, A
Sakshi Shedha – Appellant
Versus
Municipal Corporation of Delhi – Respondent
O.A. No.04/2022 | M.A. No.2962/2022
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mrs. Rashmi Chopra, Mr. Puneet Rathi
For the Respondents: Mr. Arun Birbal, Mr. Varun Gupta
The Tribunal ruled that an applicant does not misrepresent qualifications if they meet advertised criteria, affirming the importance of due process in employment terminations.
Headnote:(A) Recruitment Rules - Qualification - Degree in Architecture or Diploma in Town/City/Urban Planning or equivalent from a recognized university is essential for the appointment of an Architectural Assistant. (Paras 1, 2, 14, 22)
(B) Misrepresentation - The applicant’s claim of possessing a Degree in Architecture was contested; however, the Tribunal ruled no misrepresentation occurred as her qualifications sufficed for eligibility, highlighting the necessity of following principles of natural justice in termination cases. (Paras 20, 21, 22)
Facts of the case:
The applicant was appointed as an Architectural Assistant but her candidacy was later cancelled citing misrepresentation regarding her qualifications, as she held a Degree in Planning, not Architecture.
Findings of Court:
The cancellation of the applicant’s candidacy was unjustified and violated principles of natural justice; she was entitled to reinstatement.
Issues: The main issues addressed were the validity of the cancellation based on the qualifications stated by the applicant and the adherence to due process during her termination.
Ratio Decidendi: The court affirmed that misrepresentation was not evident; the necessary qualifications were met, and the process followed was unfair.
Result: The impugned order was quashed, and the applicant was to be reinstated.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. description of the applicant's initial successful application and subsequent cancellation of appointment. (Para 2) |
| 2. arguments supporting the claim of non-misrepresentation based on the qualifications and recruitment rules. (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. final ruling emphasizing adherence to principles of natural justice. (Para 20 , 21 , 22) |
ORDER
By Hon’ble Mrs. Pratima K. Gupta, Member (J):-
Briefly stated, the applicant participated in the selection process for the post of Architectural Assistant under Post Code 86/14 in pursuance to an advertisement issued by the DSSSB in the year, 2014. Having being declared successful, she was offered appointment to the post of Architectural Assistant on 09.03.2021. Accordingly, she joined the post on 13.04.2021. After having worked for almost eight months, she has been served with the impugned order dated 23.12.2021 cancelling her candidature. Aggrieved by the same, applicant has filed the present O.A. seeking the following relief (s) :-
“(a) to quash and set aside the order/letter No. AO/Engg.(HQ)/SDMC/2021/1242 dated 24.12.2021 (23.12.2021) issued by the Section Officer (for Administrative Officer), i.e. the authorities not competent to issue the same, cancelling the candidature, offer of appointment and subsequent appointment of the Applicant for/to the post of Architectural Assistant.
b) To direct the Respondents to re- instate/continue the Applicant in service as Architectural Assistant with all consequential benefits.
c) to direct the Respondents to release the salary of the Applicant since the date of her joining SDMC as Architectural Assistant i.e. 13.04.2021, with interest for the period of delay.
d) to restrain the Respondents from questioning the eligibility of the Applicant for the post of Architectural Assistant to which she was appointed vide letter no. AO/Engg.(HQ)/SDMC/ASO-II/2021/D-21 dated 13.04.2021.
e) to allow the OA with cost.
f) pass such other and/or further orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the existing facts and circumstances of the case.”
2. In support of her cause, learned counsel for the applicant has argued that :
i. Relying on the relevant portion of the Recruitment Rules, the Advertisement Notification was issued, pursuant to which the applicant has applied for the post in question and the relevant portion of the impugned order, read as under:-
Recruitment Rules:
“Essential
Degree in Architecture or Diploma in Town/City/Urban planning or equivalent from a recognized University or equivalent.
Desirable
Some professional experience”
Impugned order (at page 45)
The crux of the case is summarized as under:-
1) Ms. Sakshi Shedha has misrepresented before DSSSB as well as department that she possessed Degree in architecture. Ms. Sakshi Shedha has mentioned both in her application form and e-dossier verification report (e-dossier No. 23186757) that she possessed Degree in Architecture from recognized university or equivalent and further recorded her date of declaration of final result as 18.06.2012. Though application form of the applicant submitted to DSSSB shows the qualification as "Degree in Architecture or Diploma in Town/ City/Urban Planning or equivalent from a recognized university or equivalent". The offer of appointment made to Ms. Sakshi Shedha specifically has asked for producing Degree in Architecture from a recognized university or equivalent which is essentially required to perform various duties attached with the post of Architectural Assistant. The nature of work entrusted with this post demand Degree in Architecture, while Ms. Sakshi Shedha has acquired Degree in Planning which is entirely different field from Architecture.
2) It is pertinent to mention here that the issuance of appointment letter is not in conformity with conditions stipulated in offer of appointment where it has been clearly stated that applicant is required to produce Degree in Architecture or equivalent for the offered post. The Degree in Architecture is the essent
